“They did not believe a problem existed,
and if it did, they didn’t want to know. Nevertheless, he wrote a short note
about it and got it published in an IEEE journal in 1966.”

You resist accepting
that “Modern Physics” is religion, not science. Any representative of “Modern
Physics” who is seen to get in any way involved with heresy is ousted from the
Science Establishment, as were Dingle and Brian Josephson. “not
knowing how to respond to non response”, you failed to move to the next stage,
where I am, of researching the complex way in which major scientific advance is
blocked. You say “I'd call them "subliminal conspiracies"”, but I keep to
the phrase “An evolved conspiracy”, title of an article decades ago in New
Scientist by McCutcheon.

I
want you to move your work to help those who conduct the inquest 30 years from
now on how and why science ground to a halt. By then it will be obvious. Like
you, I accept that the present period is a dead period as far as scientific
advance is concerned.

A
major flaw in your view is that you think the professors and text book writers
are lazy, only interested in power and career progress. The truth is that they
are frightened, and interested in survival. Any success for our theories, or
any involvement by an Establishment figure in our theories, will end his career.
He has a right to consider the damage that would cause to his wife and family,
and to his reputation. Any professor who is in any way associated with the
remark “A capacitor is a transmission line”, or “there is no electric current”,
or with your article, or with Wakefield http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
, or with the three Catt Questions http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, or with Catt on Maxwell http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf
commits professional suicide. That is still not obvious to you. The evidence is
overwhelming that nobody in the Science Establishment can be seen to be
rigorously examining the fundamentals of his subject, which are obviously
threadbare. When they were the enemy, I was employed, as you were, on designing
weapons to kill Russians. Like today’s Science Establishment, I was entitled to
do so, because I had to maintain a wife and four children. I fully understand
their attitude. I was not after career progress, or lazy. I was committed to
financial and other survival. A professor who gets involved with us risks being
divorced by his wife and losing his home and contact with his children.

“Where are those that
desire truth and have the courage to follow where it may lead” –
Malcolm Davidson.

This
encapsulates the difference between you and me. A representative of the Science
Establishment does not need “courage” to pursue truth; he needs a death-wish.
There is overwhelming evidence of what happens to a practitioner of “Modern
Physics” if he deviates from the Party Line and pursues truth. It is not
immoral for him to consider the damage this would do to his wife and children
as well as to his reputation. I usually cite Dingle and Brian Josephson. The
latter even gained a Nobel Prize, but has been marginalised because he tried to
rock the boat of mainstream “science”, that is, “Modern Physics”. In his case,
unlike Dingle, we would not approve of his actions, because he tried to bring
the paranormal into science. However, Dingle only promoted the Twin Paradox,
and so was marginalised. He wrote a book about the experience, “Science at the
Crossroads”. You persist in ignoring this evidence, and persist in looking for
someone in the Science Establishment (“Modern Physics”) with a death wish. I
happened to have found one recently. How soon will he realise he is in danger
by consorting with me, and back away in order to make his future safe? Non-response by the Science
Establishment .

One
aspect of the current crisis which needs to be researched, and which will very
much inform those who conduct the inquest in thirty years from now, is the role
of dissident scientists, like members of Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), in
blocking scientific advance. David Tombe, whom you
mention below, hijacked some email exchanges which lasted for years discussing
Catt theories, primarily The Catt Question. He buried the emails with ideas of
his own. He would regard himself as a dissident. A decade later he confessed
that he had not until now understood The Catt
Question.http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
. Thus, David continues to absorb a great deal of our time and effort, making us try to understand his peculiar hybrid
ideas mixing classical theory with our own. Harry Ricker appeared to be the
most expert man in NPA, and looked to become a major supporter of our theories.
However, he turned out to be a proponent of “the truth that there are no
truths”, which meant that Catt theory was no better than what went before. Catt
should have the same respect for the theories he was trying to replace as he
had for his own theories, or he was a bigot. You will recollect that you and my
other co-author went down to see the man who had seriously damaged his own
career when as a government employee he supported a non-Establishment “Catt
Spiral” project and got three government funded research projects into “Catt
Spiral” at three universities.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7JYZviFH54
. They conclude that we are ideologically unsound, and so should not be
supported. According to Popper, virtually all of today’s scientific community
support the heresy of “the truth that there are no truths”, and I find they
support it fanatically, and so oppose Galileo. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x231.pdf
.“the truth
that there are no truths”, means attempts at scientific advance are a waste of
time. Very convenient for the authors of text books and lecturers with all
those lecture notes arduously written. However, this heresy extends even to
self-styled science dissidents. Even they have too much to lose from a paradigm
shift. It is fascinating to find the inability of self-styled dissidents to
understand the simplest exposition, for instance "The Catt Question" or
Wakefield . It becomes clear
that even a science dissident can only understand an exposition which comes
within the established paradigm.

“The political use of
“The truth that there are no truths” is extremely damaging and close to home.
The man in the UK government who promoted Catt invention, at serious cost to
himself in his career in government, (leading to three government funded
research projects into Catt invention in British Universities) was approached
by me and my co-authors when we could not publish our theories. As a friend of
the next to top man in the British Library, we wanted a quarter of an inch of
shelf space in the British Library so that our discoveries would survive when
we died. He responded by asking us if we believed that our theories were true.When we answered yes, he would not do anything to get
the shelf space and ensure their survival. You will see here the strength of
commitment that can be held by such as Belarmino and
Harry to “the truth that there are no truths”. It is held passionately. ”

The proof that
students are conservative, and will resist any querying of the theories they
are learning and sitting exams in, is an important advance. It contradicts
Pauli’s idea that new ideas have to wait for a new generation to take them up.
The new generation will not take them up. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31j.htm

In 1993, Sir Michael
Pepper was selected as the top expert and instructed to write to me about “The
Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, which he did. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm
. He has since been incommunicado. He was “knighted for services to Physics”,
and now edits the top journal of the Royal Society. Nobel Prize Winner
Josephson says he now disagrees with what he wrote in 1993. As I increase the
pressure on him http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.pdf
, he remains persistently incommunicado. This is in spite of the fact that the
first three Google hits for “pepper frs” have me
lambasting him. He will not come out of his lair to try to take me down. This
demonstrates the scale of the avoidance of discussion of the fundamentals of
their electromagnetic theory whose reputations and salaries are based on that
theory. He obviously cannot face me in a law court where the decision is made
by a jury. They will immediately see that his behaviour is grotesque. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18f.htm
. I have sent this to Sir Michael Pepper at mpepper@ee.ucl.ac.uk<mpepper@ee.ucl.ac.uk
.

"Nutter" , the reaction
to Catt, will be invaluable information in 2040.

Please consider the
value to those conducting the inquest in 2040 of finding that all the above was
written in 2013.

When we had a class system,
the lower class was characterised as “Immediate Aims”. The middle class had
“Deferred Aims”. This did include
aims for their children. One of my children spends far more than half the
family salary on education for their
children. In our case, the value of our work will come to fruition after we are
dead. At that time, the value will be enormous.

you cannot separate the intellect from the emotion. I do not
trivialize your work, nor do I underestimate your contributions and endeavors over these past 50 years. I am one of your few allies that has been with you through thick
and thin.

Yes, I was quiet for many years, in part because I was frustrated,
disillusioned, and not knowing how to respond to non response. You have kept at
it and I am now back as part of this collective dialogue. It is challenging and
I ask you this;

What do I do now that my
paper on Maxwell was published and there has been zero reaction from academia
and industry? David Tombe doesn't want to accept
the Transmission Line model and continues to regurgitate certain conventional
wisdoms such as V = Ldi/dt & I = -CdV/dt.

What will make the scientific community change and accept new insights, new
ideas? I am reminded of the following quote;

"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is
violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as
self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, 1788-1860"

What I am attempting is to show the model of a charging Capacitor. I have
purchased 2 copper sheets about 18 inches long by 4 inches wide. I have a
TDR with a 2 ps rise time pulse and whe I get home will create the experiment. Subsequently
there are other experiments to perform. But the question is how many does one hve to do before people begin to accept certain new ideas
and theories?

Certainly I have gained much insight into the nature of conspiracies and
I'd call them "subliminal conspiracies", in as much as Universities
and Companies send the unsaid, unwritten message, "do not fight the status
quo" (regardless of what it might be).

Where are those that desire truth and have the courage to follow where it may
lead?

Yes, there is a massive emptiness at the center of EM
theory where courses are riddled with mathematics confusing the students. No
one questions these theories because the message is that "we do not
question the experts". A student blithely learns by rote what he/she needs
to learn to pass the exams. A cursory glance at blogs on the web show that the
majority of students have no understanding of EM theory and blindly
try to explain things in a hamfisted manner.

The lumped component model is a poor one for a clear understading
of EM. It is time to dump it and move on.

The last two on the
present proposed scale wer in around 1825, with
Phlogiston and with Caloric.

It is obvious that
professional scientists cannot tolerate such a shift, since their livelihood
and future rests on the reigning paradigm.

At present, a professor
in a major university is “very keen” on pursuing my ideas. Does he realise that
when my co-author gives his lectures to the professor’s staff, his staff will
turn on him. Also, he will ipso facto cease to be one of the “science establishment”, and will no longer be able to publish? The
precedent for this is Dingle, and of course Brian Josephson. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ipub002a.htm

There is no
conspiracy by professionals to prevent major scientific advance. It is only “an
evolved conspiracy”. It is therefore surely not “fool-proof”. It remains for me
to find the fatal flaw in the blocking mechanism.

Of course, my work is
made much more difficult when Harry Ricker comes in with the red herring, “The
truth that there are no truths”, so why should we bother to have a paradigm
shift – out of the frying pan into the fire of Catt theories? It is also made
much harder when David Tombe confuses my work with
classical theory, and creates some sort of hybrid. However, lacking Harry and
David, I would have no dialogue at all. No accredited expert in em theory will make any written comment whatsoever on my
“Catt Questions” or on Wakefield.

No accredited expert
in “The Sociology of Science”, and no journalist at any level, will touch what
I am finding.

The idea that my
primary response to this will be “frustration” is absurd. Note that in the kind
of work I am doing, everyone, including my closest allies, confuse the matter
by bringing in personality. Thiuswork I am doing is
scientific, and not emotional. I might feign emotion as mart
of my work, of course, but that is not emotion.

Appallingly, Dr John
Roche says I welcome controversy. An appalling assertion.
It science were functioning properly, I would be riding very high indeed.
Controversy cannot be my objective.